Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 5 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Supreme Court upheld a Texas court, which had ruled a Texas lau' unconstitutional. Johnson’s act, however unpopular, was clearly an act of political expression, they held. Otherwise, they figured, he wouldn’t have done it. Comparing that to blowing up the Washington Monument is the height of absurdity.
To answer Oyster’s question: No, destroying a large public monument belonging to the government is not protected speech. That one has been answered many times by many courts. I didn’t even go to law school and I learned that.
But here is the truly extraordinary statement in Oyster’s latest lecture: “If we give the Supreme Court carte blanche to interpret the Constitution any way they want, we will have permitted the government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’ to be replaced by government of nine political appointees.”
Mr. Oyster, I have bad news for you. The founders of our nation did exactly that in 1787 when they created the Constitution. Yep, they went and created an independent Supreme Court to decide what was Constitutional and what wasn’t. Just those nine folks and the only way you can change that is through a Constitutional Amendment. It is a pretty good system, and although it ain’t perfect, it has worked very well for over 200 years.
(Now, I concede I was a bit smarmy about those initials. I had a good friend, a writer of
93.7%